High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-11-07Writ petition allowed. No costs.

A.P. Balakrishnan and Others v. State of Kerala and Kerala Water Authority and Others

Case / Petition Number:OP No. 24590 of 1998

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2007-11-07
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. No costs. The petitioners shall be absorbed into regular service in light of the Jacob judgment, without insisting on possession of the qualifications in Ext.P5 and without the restrictions imposed by Exts.P6 and P7, with full effect as per Jacob’s directions. Consequential orders to be issued within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed. No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A.P. Balakrishnan
V. Sreedharan
Gowri Sankaran
M. Sankaran
M.K. Ramakrishnan
K. Vasudevan
T. Gopaln
K. Subramanian

Respondents

The State of Kerala, rep. by the Chief Secretary Govt. of Kerala, Trivandrum
Kerala Water Authority, rep. by the Managing Director, KWA, Trivandrum
The Secretary, Irrigation, Govt. of Kerala, Govt. Secretariat, Trivandrum
The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, PH Division, Palakkad-1
The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, PH Division, Shornur, Palakkad Dist.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.TKM.Unnithan (Adv.)

Counsels for Respondents

• Govt. Pleader SMT. Smitha Sukumaran; Advs. Sri C. Rasheed; Advs. Sri C. Unnikrishnan; SC, KWA

Case Synopsis & Summary

The eight petitioners were C.L.R. workers in the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) whose service commenced between 12 May 1980 and 26 May 1983, before the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) was constituted in 1984. They seek absorption into the KWA’s regular establishment in line with directions from the Supreme Court in Jacob M. Puthuparambil and Others v. Kerala Water Authority and Others (AIR 1990 SC 2228), arguing that qualification prerequisites reflected in Ext.P5 should not bar their regularisation. They also challenge Exts.P5, P6 and P7 as inconsistent with Jacob’s judgment. The respondents rely on Ext.P5 (linking absorption to possession of specific qualifications) and argue that Ext.P6 granted absorption with prospective effect, without altering seniority, complies with the established procedural framework. In Jacob’s case, the Apex Court held that regularisation of ex-PHED employees on the establishment of the Authority is within the Authority’s domain and should not await State Government approval; it directed the Authority to regularise such employees immediately as per its 30 January 1987 resolution, and that this directive would govern all similarly situated persons. The Kerala High Court, applying Jacob’s directions, quashes the challenged orders to the extent of restrictions and directs absorption of the petitioners without insisting on the qualifications in Ext.P5, and without the restrictions in Exts.P6–P7, with full effect, and within two months. The petition is allowed with no costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that, following the Supreme Court’s Jacob judgment, they are entitled to absorption into the KWA’s regular service without the qualification prerequisites imposed by Ext.P5. They assert that Exts.P6 and P7, which conferred absorption with prospective effect and without altering seniority, dilate the beneficiary class unnecessarily and contravene Jacob’s directions. They seek quashing of Exts.P5, P6, and P7 and an immediate, full regularisation in accordance with Jacob’s ruling, applicable to all similarly situated ex-PHED workers.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend Ext.P5 as a qualification filter, maintain that absorption must conform to existing rules and approvals, and point to Ext.P6’s prospective absorption and seniority preservation as a balanced approach compatible with government and departmental procedures. They rely on the extant orders and the Government’s position that State authorization is a prerequisite for certain acts of regularisation, while acknowledging Jacob’s authority but urging cautious, phased implementation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jacob M. Puthuparambil and Others v. Kerala Water Authority & Others	AIR 1990 SC 2228	Positive	The High Court explicitly follows and applies the Supreme Court’s directions in Jacob’s case, directing immediate regularisation of ex-PHED employees and removal of qualification restrictions, thereby authorising absorption per the 1987 resolution without State Government delays.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against A.P. Balakrishnan and Others v. State of Kerala and Kerala Water Authority and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1929** **OP.No. 24590 of 1998(B)** **---------------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **-------------------** **1. A.P. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. AP. NARAYANAN, ATTASSERY PURAKKAL, P.O. CHOORAKODE, VALLAPPUZHA, PALLAKAD. NOW WORKING AS OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.W.S.S.S. SECTION, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD.** **2. V. SREEDHARAN, S/O. P.RAMAN NAIR, VETTATH HOUSE, P.O. KOODALLUR, VIA KUMBIDI, PALAKKAD WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. SECTION NO. 1, SHORNUR.** **3. GOWRI SANKARAN, S/O. K. BHASKARAN, PANCHENAKOLAMBA HOUSE, P.O. OLASSERI, KOTTAMBU, PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS OPERATOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH SECTION, CHITTUR.** **4. M.SANKARAN (S/O. MADHAVAN), ANAMARI HOUSE, P.O. ERATTAKULAM, VIA ANCHUMOORTHH, PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS FITTER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH SECTION, ALATHUR.** **5. M.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. KUTTA, OURPADAM HOUSE, KARIMBA P.O., MUNNEKRA, NOW WORKING AS FITTER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH SECTION, ALATHUR.** **6. K.VASUDEVAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. MANNAMPATTA, PULASSERI, PALAKKAD NOW WORKING AS OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH SECTION, PATTAMBI.** **7. T.GOPALAN, S/O. KARIKKA, THERUMARIL HOUSE, P.O. MANNAMPATTA, PULASSERI, PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH SECTION, PATTAMBI.** **8. K. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. A.KUNCHAN, KORATHODI HOUSE, P.O. KADUKKAMKUNNAM, PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PWSS SECTION, MALAMPUZHA.** **BY ADV. SRI.TKM.UNNITHAN** **OP NO. 24590/1998 B** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **---------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.** **2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM.** **3. THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.** **4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH DIVISION, PALAKKAD-1.** **5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH DIVISION, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DIST.** **GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMARAN ADVS. SRI.C.RASHEED, SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA** **THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2007, THE COURT ON 07/11/2007 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ORDER ON CMP NO. 43283/1998 IN OP NO. 24590/1998 B.** ## **DISMISSED** **07/11/2007. SD/- THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1. COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DT. 19/09/90 BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN WPC NO. 112/90 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES.** **EXT.P2. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DT. 5/1/91 BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA.** **EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 2/5/91 BY THE KWA.** **EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 18/3/93 BY THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY.** ## **EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 25/5/98 BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY.** **EXT.P6. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DT. 21/10/05 PRODUCED ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT DT. 4/12/2005.** **EX.T.P7. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 28/10/2005 PRODUCED ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT DT. 4/12/2005.** **EXT.P8. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 14/1/2004 PRODUCED ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL AFFIDVIT DT. 4/12/2005.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL.** _True copy_ _tga_ ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.** ------------------------------------------- ## O.P.No.24590 OF 1998 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of November, 2007 ## **JUDGMENT** The eight petitioners joined as C.L.R. workers in the Public Health Engineering Department under the State Government between 12.5.1980 and 26.5.1983, i.e., before the constitution of the Kerala Water and Waste Water Authority, with effect from 1.4.1984, which later on, came to be the Kerala Water Authority, the evolution of which is traced in para 2 of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Jacob M. Puthuparambil and Others** v. **Kerala Water Authority & Others** [AIR 1990 SC 2228]. 2. Petitioners seek a direction to the Water Authority to absorb them into regular service of the Water Authority in the light of the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment, without insisting on possession of qualification referred to in Ext.P5. They also seek that Exts.P5, P6 and P7 be quashed. OP.24590/98 ## Page numbers 3. Ext.P5 has been issued by stating that the absorption is dependent on possession of requisite qualification. Thereafter, during the pendency of this writ petition, Government have issued Ext.P6 by granting absorption to the petitioners with prospective effect, without affecting the seniority of PSC hands. The petitioners contend that such action is in violation of the judgment in **Jacob** 's case (supra) and they are entitled to the benefit of that judgment, without being diluted as per the impugned orders. 4. In **Jacob** 's case, adverting to the pleadings of the parties, the Apex Court noticed that the stand of the State Government through its counsel is that the question of regularisation of the services of ex-PHED employees now borne on the establishment of the Authority is exclusively within the purview of the Authority and the State Government has no role to play. The Apex Court, therefore, noticed that the said stand means that it was wholly unnecessary on the part of the Authority to make the recommendation it made by the resolution of 30[th] January, 1987 OP.24590/98 ## Page numbers to the State Government for the regularisation of the ex-PHED employees serving on its establishment on that date. Resultantly, their lordships noticed that at present it is for the Authority and the Authority alone to regularise the services of such employees without waiting for a nod from the State Government. Answering the issues raised in **Jacob** 's case, it was specifically directed in para 17 (1) of that judgment that the authority will, with immediate effect, regularise the services of all ex-PHED employees as per its Resolution of 30[th] January, 1987 without waiting for State Government approval. The directions ended by stating that the order being issued by the Apex Court will regulate the services not only of the parties to the present petitions, but also all others similarly situated, including those who may be parties to other proceedings pending indifferent Courts. In the light of the above, it is impossible to make any classification or to postpone the date of benefit of the judgment in **Jacob** 's case. OP.24590/98 ## Page numbers In the result, the decisions under challenge, to the extent the impugned, are quashed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be absorbed into regular service in the light of the direction in the judgment in **Jacob** 's case, without insisting on possession of qualifications referred to in Ext.P5 and such absorption shall be without the restrictions imposed as per Exts.P6 and P7. This means that their absorption shall not be confined to be prospective, but shall be by giving full effect to the directions in **Jacob** 's case (supra). Consequential orders shall be issued within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/- **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge** kkb. OP.24590/98 Page numbers ======================= THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J O.P.NO.24590 OF 1998 JUDGMENT NOVEMBER, 2007. =======================